From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Dec 13 15:46:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id eBDFhrC19945 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:53 GMT Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBDFho819896 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:50 GMT Received: from mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (mail.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.1]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBDFhiN29794 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:44 GMT Received: from pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk (IDENT:root@pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.27]) by mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eBDFhel22703; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:40 GMT Received: from localhost (booth@localhost) by pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id PAA30507; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:39 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk: booth owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Ben Booth <booth@atm.ox.ac.uk> To: student-ultimate@egroups.com cc: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: GBH In-Reply-To: <3A365D19.5CE15E3@york.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012131542440.30463-100000@pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Sod it! I know I've had my two pence. This essentially comes down to two things: 1) Firstly and most importantly: The rules are there and should be keep to. Did GBH intentionally, knownly ingnore the eligiablilty rule. Did they omit to find the information that would have told them about the eligiability rule? 2)secondly, did fielding the ineligiable player effect the outcome of the game which resulted in them qualifying. OR did he effect the more general result. THAT is the only two questions relevent to this. If the answer is yes to any part then the disqualification should stand. My own gut instinct from watching them play in loughborough is that this player didn't have a significant impact on the qame in question. The first point I find harder to answer. I don't believe that they intentionally fielded him knowing that he was ineligiable, whether they should/could have found out about the rule before hand is harder to answer. Is that information readily available? I suspect that is isn't easy to find out. But perhaps others should answer that question. If this information wasn't readily avaliable. i.e. short of writing a writern letter to some official in the organisation before hand asking for clarification on the point - which I think is too much to have expected - then responsiability for this slip up can't be entirely placed on GBH's shoulders There would therefore be a strong case for reinstatement. Leeds beginners tournament - as I understand it - saw GBH enter much the same team as student qualifiers - they didn't apprechiate that it ment that the players should be complete beginners not the team. The team contained 3 ex GB juniors. When the this was raised with GBH they agreed to forfit all their games. Leeds was unfortunate and I kinda suspect that it lead to the discision on Sunday. The 3 who where ineligiable where playing as eligiable players in the midlands qualifiers - the midlands' ineligiable player was eligiable to play in the beginners tournament in Leeds. It could be argued and has been argued that Leeds should have ment that GBH should have spent more time finding out about eligiablility rules before entering thier second tournament. This goes back to the first point!! Did GBH make themselves suficiently aware, within reason, of the entrance requiremnets. If the answer to that is no then the disqualification should stand. If the answer is yes then we should really consider reinstatement. As I have said I don't feel in the position to answer that - but I suspect that the information isn't readily available. This is the question that we need to answer! Ben OW3 - though again this is very much my thoughts and not OW3's or even OW's - it hasn't been discused as OW is now on holiday. Appologies to those who wheren't part of the midlands Qualifying group or interested in the outcome. I have been trying to sit on my hands these last two days, but it majorly annouys me that a new team has been disqulaified for a technical infringment, that didn't have a major impact on the result, and which they may understandaly not have been aware off. I feel that there may have been a suspicion of GBH because of Leeds which wasn't raised with them until they started beating top seeds. One reason I love ultimate is that there isn't all this bullshit over rules. (But perhaps we need a referee in this case!?!) --- In student-ultimate@egroups.com, "Brendan Cuddihy" <fue8bkc@E...> wrote: > I've just been reminded of a run-in I had with Raj of GBH over his > fielding ineligable experienced players in the beginners division of > the Sheffield tournament earlier this year, after which they were > forced to concede their games. Odd that! > > Brendan > Jedi